Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35067570›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Lexical Access Changes Based on Listener Needs: Real-Time Word Recognition in Continuous Speech in Cochlear Implant Users.

Francis X Smith, Bob McMurray

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Decoupling speech processing from time.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multimodal bilinguals reveal complex pathways for flexible language processing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francis X SmithDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
Bob McMurrayDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
University of Iowa · US

Funding

Speech Production &LanguageP50DC000242 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Inyong Choi · 1989 to 2026
$58.8M
The Development of Real Time Spoken and Written Word Recognition: Cognitive Bases of Language and Educational OutcomesR01DC008089 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI MCMURRAY, BOB · 2007 to 2023
$7.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC000242NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA key challenge in word recognition is the temporary ambiguity created by the fact that speech unfolds over time. In normal hearing (NH) listeners, this temporary ambiguity is resolved through incremental processing and competition among lexical candidates. Post-lingually deafened cochlear implant (CI) users show similar incremental processing and competition but with slight delays. However, even brief delays could lead to drastic changes when compounded across multiple words in a phrase. This study asks whether words presented in non-informative continuous speech (a carrier phrase) are processed differently than in isolation and whether NH listeners and CI users exhibit different effects of a carrier phrase.

designIn a Visual World Paradigm experiment, listeners heard words either in isolation or in non-informative carrier phrases (e.g., "click on the…" ). Listeners selected the picture corresponding to the target word from among four items including the target word (e.g., mustard ), a cohort competitor (e.g., mustache ), a rhyme competitor (e.g., custard ), and an unrelated item (e.g., penguin ). Eye movements were tracked as an index of the relative activation of each lexical candidate as competition unfolds over the course of word recognition. Participants included 21 post-lingually deafened cochlear implant users and 21 NH controls. A replication experiment presented in the Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/EANDH/A999 included an additional 22 post-lingually deafened CI users and 18 NH controls.

resultsBoth CI users and the NH controls were accurate at recognizing the words both in continuous speech and in isolation. The time course of lexical activation (indexed by the fixations) differed substantially between groups. CI users were delayed in fixating the target relative to NH controls. Additionally, CI users showed less competition from cohorts than NH controls (even as previous studies have often report increased competition). However, CI users took longer to suppress the cohort and suppressed it less fully than the NH controls. For both CI users and NH controls, embedding words in carrier phrases led to more immediacy in lexical access as observed by increases in cohort competition relative to when words were presented in isolation. However, CI users were not differentially affected by the carriers.

conclusionsUnlike prior work, CI users appeared to exhibit "wait-and-see" profile, in which lexical access is delayed minimizing early competition. However, CI users simultaneously sustained competitor activation late in the trial, possibly to preserve flexibility. This hybrid profile has not been observed previously. When target words are heard in continuous speech, both CI users and NH controls more heavily weight early information. However, CI users (but not NH listeners) also commit less fully to the target, potentially keeping options open if they need to recover from a misperception. This mix of patterns reflects a lexical system that is extremely flexible and adapts to fit the needs of a listener.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionHearingHumansSpeech

Identifiers

PMID35067570
PMCPMC9300769
OpenAlexW4206954703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.